News:

Reading the forum on your cell phone? There's an easier way. We've enabled a Tapatalk app that makes browsing the forum a whole lot easier. Check it out in the iPhone or Android store if you don't own it already.

Author
Topic: wet avalanches (Read 4518 times)

The last report on avy danger from mt washington describe more the condition, and it is more usefull for me. In one of them, we see the breaking point between the schrubbs of one of them. Because the trees is warmer than the snow, it is an increasing factor of instability in wet avalanches, not in dry one. Personally, I decide to go to the gunks next week end to rock climb because I am scare by wet avalanches.

Don't be foul. One or two times per years, we have, in quebec, snow storm of two or three feet of snow with wind as strong as what they have on the alpen garden. I climbed for twenty five years. Pratical experience, as a feeling that you are in danger, and theorical knowledge, as I know every thing on avalanche and the other don't, is two different think. I can't teach you my experience...you have to built your own experience by going in the mountain.

« Last Edit: March 03, 2013, 01:05:22 pm by lucky luke »

Logged

DLottmann

except trees are trigger points in dry snow slab avalanches as well. Careful with the generalizations. I’m copying what I removed from the other post regarding some stuff you said here, as it didn’t belong there;

Did I say, like Dman, that considerable danger wednesday is more dangerous than moderate danger on friday, so we can go climbing?

“Considerable" Danger is more dangerous than “Moderate”. You are trying to disagree with the entire North American Avalanche Danger Scale accepted by the entire North American continent... except you.

(Sigh)... Champ, I agree that training & practice up there during elevated conditions is important. I have never said you shouldn’t go up there in Considerable or High danger, but I have said you should not enter a start zone of a major avalanche path in those conditions. I took 11 students into the ravine today while it was rated “Considerable”... but we did not kick steps up the headwall... We did find unstable snow below Left Gully, resulting in some CTV and CTE results, and then pulled of a RB3, which was pretty damn cool to see. We were on a small test slope with little consequence, and I’ll post more details tomorrow night when I have time.

Fifteen inches of snow.... it is obvious that two or three days later it will be more dangerous than in the middle of the snowstorm wednesday. What was the avy danger between wednesday and friday? Better not know. With the raising temperature, the transformation of the snow pack will be faster. It is not just powder snow that we will have, but heavy wet snow. In my opinion, the most dangerous type of avalanche. Slow and so strong.

You need to stop making this generalization as it is totally false. Whether or not the snowpack is more stable 2-3 days after a storm is dependent on more conditions then I’ll go into right now, but “generally” speaking, we are in a Maritime snow climate where avalanche danger can rise AND fall quickly. MOST of our avalanches are “direct-action”, which means they happen DURING the storms, not many days later, like in a Continental Snowpack (Rockies).

You also assumed the warm temps you must be experiencing at low elevation somewhere would produce wet heavy snow... if you’ve been reading the bulletins or weather we have had in the last two weeks it has been consistently cold and our snow has been extremely light density (5%-6%) type snow... super light and fluffy...

So please.... please, stop making these false generalizations. Your heart is in the right place but you talk out of your ass.

So please.... please, stop making these false generalizations. Your heart is in the right place but you talk out of your ass.

As for the evolution of a snow pack, progress and other chemical and physical reaction are far behound your understanding...and are not wrote in an avalanche book, we can't have any discussion on who is the more stupid.

I agree that many people in the general population, scare of there shade, with a large ego are better to follow your course than to go alone in the cliff to show off...and be trap some where. You take a professorale attitude to show that you had a lot of knowledge...and you most have some because you go often in the mountain...that help for client scare of there shade.

But for climber, it is better not to ear from you. Generalizations is all what you have when yo are in front of a slab and you have to decide to go in the middle, the right, the left or to bail, to rope up, anchor or stay close togheter. I never ever trust the avy danger in that situation, considering that the danger is extreme and take the best decision with general rules or thumbs rules. It was not of any help in those condition to know that the water can be in one of his three phase. Phase that you probably don't know anything on it.

... in those condition to know that the water can be in one of his three phase. Phase that you probably don't know anything on it.

I have heard references to "triple phase" of water in nature before. I have often questioned it, believing it as the mis-characterization of a different phenomenon as opposed to water actually in triple phase in nature.Triple phase exists when "Under the singular conditions of temperature and pressure where liquid water, gaseous water and hexagonal ice stably coexist, there is a 'triple point' where both the boiling point of water and melting point of ice are equal.".http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html#trip

In nature, as opposed to in a lab, when can one find the conditions required for triple phase to exist?29.96" of Hg is 0.101 MPa.

Logged

"You have to decide to do a flag, where you can broke your vertebrae or a barn door depending of your pro" - the poster formerly known as Champ

darwined

So please.... please, stop making these false generalizations. Your heart is in the right place but you talk out of your ass.

As for the evolution of a snow pack, progress and other chemical and physical reaction are far behound your understanding...and are not wrote in an avalanche book, we can't have any discussion on who is the more stupid.

I agree that many people in the general population, scare of there shade, with a large ego are better to follow your course than to go alone in the cliff to show off...and be trap some where. You take a professorale attitude to show that you had a lot of knowledge...and you most have some because you go often in the mountain...that help for client scare of there shade.

But for climber, it is better not to ear from you. Generalizations is all what you have when yo are in front of a slab and you have to decide to go in the middle, the right, the left or to bail, to rope up, anchor or stay close togheter. I never ever trust the avy danger in that situation, considering that the danger is extreme and take the best decision with general rules or thumbs rules. It was not of any help in those condition to know that the water can be in one of his three phase. Phase that you probably don't know anything on it.

Luke, through all of your hard to understand rambling that I've managed to digest in the few months I've been here, I get the feeling that you advocate no formal education for any kind of mountaineering. Unless, of course, it's through FOTH and then its ok. Instead you think it should be learned through trial and error on the mountain. Is that correct? Because if it is, in my opinion, that would be like taking a 16 year old kid who has never ridden in a car, having him read a drivers manual and then turning him loose on a 5 lane interstate right at rush hour. What could go wrong?

No one felt I was teaching fear. I am not calling you stupid, and I'm sure you might have some deeper understanding of chemicals than I do, I am certain you do not understand snow science as deeply as I do as you repeatedly make statements that are easily rebuffed and explained incorrect.

Again, I get it. Experience is as important as knowledge. Both are important.

Danf nailed it... you have an issue with "formal" education.

Somewhere along the line you worked with a guide who "taught fear"...

Hell, my first 3 years teaching avalanche courses = teaching fear....

I learned that was wrong... to ski powder one must go out on Considerable days... but one MUST understand WHERE they can go on those days... that's all... not "stay home" or "don't go", but "where should we go?"

Luke, through all of your hard to understand rambling that I've managed to digest in the few months I've been here, I get the feeling that you advocate no formal education for any kind of mountaineering. Unless, of course, it's through FOTH and then its ok. Instead you think it should be learned through trial and error on the mountain. Is that correct?

The death of a climber always make me angry. I feel without resources and guilty to did nothing when it was time. I begun to talk about safety for that reason. In Quebec, for three years, we didn't have any death. I was very agressive in my writing because they bring people to follow a set of rules and think that they are safe. I wrote again last year because there was three death. Actually, it is calm.

Formal or informal education, I am for both. I don't think that because I critic Dman similarity with some Quebec mentality make me for or against formal education. As I said in the recent avalache thread, I think that FOTH, to the fifth edition, try to bring togheter all the knowledge, good and bad, that the climber old and young use or used. For example, they say that it is dangerous to thread a sling true the loop of a stopper. That you are better to use a carabiner.

Today, and it is what I think of Dman, they won't say that it is dangerous...they will say don't do that. If you have an accident your stupid (in general, those who accuse other of stupid have not a lot of place in my heart, you understand that dman accuse a women in mt jackson because she didn't bring a map!!!).

But if you are a climber and you run out of carabiner for many reasons...are you going to tie a sling? And if you have to do so...look on the fifth version of FOTH, they will show you a way that can probably save your life.

The problem is that the course is not a collection of techniques that can save your life, but a state-of-the-arttechnique that work for you...but maybe not for an other climber or situation. For example the triangle technique in ice is a state of the art technique (the highest level of development at a particular time), but I climbed at Frankeinstein three weeks ago and there was a layer of ice over snow or roten ice and the monkey hang technique was a lot more safer.

A collection of techniques...you must climbed to learn it and trained to master it. Don't be confused with a collection of thing that you can't use because it is completely not climbing, some course that gave you an impression of knowledge but you have to climb on low avalanche avy.

As some people look interested by the triple phase of water, and had the answer

here is an other question, little bit difficult. On the site quote above, they said that the round grain methamorphose into pyramidale crystal (faceted cup shape grain) Why this happen? and can you associate your explication with an other phenomena where water is involve?

This is an hard one... not sure if it is usefull...but we will look more intelligent.

DLottmann

The answer to your Depth Hoar question is during a strong TG vapor moves from areas of relatively high pressure to areas of low pressure, and when it occurs through sublimation at the grain level that moves mass from the convex areas of the grain to the concave sections of the grain. There’s some other stuff in there but that’s the gist.

The answer to your Depth Hoar question is during a strong TG vapor moves from areas of relatively high pressure to areas of low pressure, and when it occurs through sublimation at the grain level that moves mass from the convex areas of the grain to the concave sections of the grain. There’s some other stuff in there but that’s the gist.

WRONG! I was sure that you didn't know the answer

Your explication is the explicaton of metamorphism, which create round shape crystal as the water is adsorbed (look at that word, sure yopu don't know it...it is write corectly) to the particules.